Madam Speaker, to be very honest, I wish to take advantage of my colleague's expertise. The bulk of his speech constituted an objective analysis of the opposition motion we are dealing with.
I am sure he is aware that the government, Canada Customs and Revenue and the Department of Finance in particular, are going to give very careful scrutiny to the technical error for the years 1993 to 1999.
I would, however, like to make the following point. Sometimes, when analyzing figures, there is a tendency, not always deliberate, to exaggerate certain information. I recall, for instance, the campaign launched in Quebec by the government in power concerning the 15 cent federal contribution to health care, while we now know that the figure is excess of 40% . This is public knowledge.
In would like to take advantage of the fact that my colleague has spoken on this issue. Given his frequent dealings with funding and his very clear understanding of the difference between tax points and equalization payments, I would like to ask him what he thinks of the present position by the Part Quebecois and even the government—the possibility is being discussed—of holding a referendum on tax points this fall, knowing that the cost of this referendum will be some $50 million and it is supposedly a known fact that a consensus will be readily attainable.
This morning I read an article by André Pratt in which he characterizes such a referendum as an exercise in futility, that will be costly and above all risky.
I would therefore ask my colleague, in all honesty, what he thinks of the appropriateness of holding a referendum which strikes all Quebecers as pointless and would cost between $50 million and $75 million.